Letters To The Editor

February 25, 2005

Nike Deals

Are Disgusting

Although I have always been a Huskies fan even before coaches Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma arrived on the scene, I was appalled at the Page 1 article I read on Feb. 19 [``Nike Helps UConn Coaches Score''].

These individuals earn their salaries by providing training and morals to their young teams. Setting an example by taking large amounts of money from Nike is disgusting. Both coaches also earn money from bank endorsements and other promotions.

I am angry about the Nike contracts because state schools are floundering and even highly paid presidents get nowhere near the salaries that coaches get, never mind the students who pay high fees to acquire an education other than basketball.

The coaches should consider giving more to charity.

Kathleen Frances Berard

Windsor Locks

Leftist Professors Good For America

In Brian C. Anderson's Feb. 4 Other Opinion piece ``The Left Is Losing College Kids,'' he points out that ``the left's iron hold on academe is beginning to loosen,'' claiming that the alleged left-wing bias among college professors is detrimental to the education of young people.

I agree that college faculties tend to lean left, at least by the parameters of the U.S. political spectrum. But I take issue with the idea that this tendency is always a bad thing.

I was a student in the late '80s and early '90s at a college in the Midwest whose humanities professors definitely leaned left. While taking a number of political science and sociology classes, my eyes were opened to the U.S. role in places such as Nicaragua, El Salvador and many others. I learned not to take an anti-American stand, but rather to think critically about our country, what it stands for and how it behaves in and outside its borders.

Consumers of mass media hear all too often how great the United States is. In some cases, they are led to believe that the United States is the champion of all that is good in the world.

I love the United States, but am thankful to have received the skills of questioning my leaders and looking deeper into the issues than watching a simple sound byte on a cable news show.

Academia as described in Mr. Anderson's article serves as a balance to the messages young people are bombarded with every day. The United States needs more well-rounded, critical thinkers; alternative views on campus contribute to this end.

David Venn

New Britain

Canadian Drugs Will Hurt Science

In the editorial ``Let Americans Buy From Canada'' [Feb. 21], The Courant jumps on the bandwagon of outspoken but ill-informed critics of the pharmaceutical industry.

As a Canadian employed as a drug-discovery scientist in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, I can tell you that allowing importation of drugs from Canada, although it may feel good, is not going to solve the health care crisis in this country.

It will, however, significantly harm the industry that has improved the quality of life for The Courant's readers and saved many lives. Allowing importation is equivalent to imposing price controls, which will undoubtedly result in significant cuts in research as companies find ways to survive.

Some readers will undoubtedly conclude that I'm just worried about losing my job. Indeed, I am. However, I am more worried about the future of my children. Given that it takes up to 15 years to get a new drug to market, many years will have passed following significant research cutbacks before the public starts noticing a lack of new, life-saving drugs.

By the time the outcry becomes loud enough to allow the pharmaceutical industry to re-expand its research and once again bring new drugs to the market, 30 years or more may have gone by. I may not be here when that happens, but my children and their grandchildren will be, and I fear that future. Perhaps The Courant should, too.

W. Ross Tracey

East Lyme

A Disagreement Between Allies

The difference of opinion between lobbyist Betty Gallo and Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes A Family, is not a ``split,'' which describes a division into factions that attack one another [Page 1, Feb. 23, ``Lobbyist, Gay Rights Group Split''].

I remember when the black movement was torn between civil disobedience and militant resistance and when the National Organization for Women debated the exclusion of lesbians. But they did not waste time trying to sabotage each other's work.

It is a tribute to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement in Connecticut that its leaders can have different approaches while maintaining their vision and mutual respect.

I am a single disabled senior who will not personally benefit from either civil unions or gay marriage, but I support Love Makes A Family's insistence on full equality. I also have been a marriage, family and child counselor for 20 years and have worked with thousands of couples, both gay and straight.

I see no distinctions in the dynamics. If the current trend continues -- about 50 percent of cohabiting couples are unmarried -- the only people getting married will be gays and lesbians.